Saturday, April 14, 2012

Romney at the NRA Convention Making Slick Willy Seem Like a Straight Shooter

Courting skeptical gun owners, Mitt Romney told a National Rifle Association convention that their rights are under assault from President Barack Obama’s administration and they must help block his re-election.

“We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners. President Obama has not; I will,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said in St. Louis yesterday at a gathering organizers say will draw about 65,000 through the weekend.

“We need a president who will stand up for the rights of hunters, sportsmen and those who seek to protect their homes and their families,” he said. “President Obama has not; I will.”

“I’m not a big-game hunter,” he said. “I’ve made it very clear, I’ve always been a, if you will, a rodent and rabbit hunter all right? Small, small varmints, if you will. And I began when I was, oh, 15 or so, and have hunted those kinds of varmints since then -- more than two times. I also hunted quail in Georgia, so I’ve -- it’s not really big-game hunting, if you will, however. It’s not deer and large animals. But I’ve hunted a number of times of various types of small rodents.”

Just little varmints, to use a word that all North-easterners use daily, that's all he's killed.

Isn't such transparent fence-straddling offensive to both sides. Is that supposed to appease the real hunters while not totally putting off the animal rights folks?

This isn't even a smart strategy. If the racist white conservatives weren't so desperate to rid the country of Obama, this approach would be laughed at. It should be laughed at, it's pathetic.

Here's the test though. Are the NRA types as numerous as they say? I mean the ones completely under the ether? The convention is a gathering of 60,000 passionate members, but how representative are they of the whole?

29 comments:

Do tell us, Mikeb, in what ways Obama will expand gun rights in a second term. Or better yet, tell us the ways in which Obama would be better for gun owners than Romney. That would be one hilarious article to read.

The simple truth is that any Republican is better than just about any Democrat when it comes to gun rights. That's not the only topic of consideration, and certainly Romney sounds no more like the common man on this subject (or any other) than did John Kerry, but at least Romney's singing from the right hymnal these days. Obama always sounds like Bloomberg: I believe in the Second Amendment, but. . .

Well, try this on for size. Obama has a history of supporting gun control, but it was a long time ago. Since then he's changed, moved in your direction, by actually signing gun-rights legislation. Romney, on the other hand, has a history of supporting gun control, but now TALKS a good game to the NRA, making promises that contradict his past record.

Why would anyone see Romney as the clear preference concerning guns. I don't get it, and whenever I don't get one of these Obama conundrums, I suspect racism.

Mikeb, you suspect racism in everything, so that's not a surprise. But here's one point to consider. The next president will nominate at least two justices to the Supreme Court. Do you really think that Obama would send up anyone who supports decisions like Heller and McDonald?

"Do tell us, Mikeb, in what ways Obama will expand gun rights in a second term. Or better yet, tell us the ways in which Obama would be better for gun owners than Romney. That would be one hilarious article to read."

Do tell us, Greg Camp, in what ways would Romney be a better president than he was governor? In what ways, be specific would Mittunswillard advance the interestest of the majority of USAians that DON'T haz teh gunz? Y'now, Greggie, every time you make some idiotic comment like the one above it'a a "tell". It's fairly obvious to me and anyone else who's NOT a member of Gunzloonz Nation that you peope are the most extreme exemplar of "single issue voters" since about 1861.

You and those who think like you are selfish (and foolish) in the extreme. You are prepared to vote for Willard the Windsock, regardless what his actual policy prescriptions might be, just because he hints that he won't stand in the way of you hazzing even MORE gunz (and bigger and with higher cycle rates?) than you haz already. Your indignoarance and naivete are not endearing to those of us whose memories encompass the years from 2000--2008, when Shrub conned people like you into voting for him because you bought into the jingoism.

"That's not the only topic of consideration..."? Bullshit. You and your insecure gunzloonzpalz would vote for anyone who promised you that they would make the 2nd Amendment the only one that matters.

Romney signed an assault rifle ban in 2004, speaking in favor of making it permanent, one that was a Massachussetts parallel legislation to the federal ban. He also made more rigorous regulation on guns.

Obama in contrast signed legislation that made it legal to carry guns in parks, for starters.

Mikeb makes a good point - I doubt that there is the support for the NRA that there is for revising - better yet, repealing - the Shoot First laws.

And with the greater attention on ALEC, and the calls for both the corp-o-rats to abandon their support for it AND the pressure for legislators to get out of it, the NRA is on a steep slide losing their prior influence.

Shame on the righties for condoning corruption of the fundamental premise of our government - government of the people by the people for the people. Not government of the people by corporate special interest (including the NRA on behalf of the gun manufacturers) for corporate interests at the expense of the people. How unpatriotic the right really is, for all their liberty and free-dumb empty headed bullshit.

1. So Democommie and Dog Gone have no answer to the question, How would Obama be better than Romney on the single issue of guns? Of course not.

2. I'm well aware of Romney's past sins on gun control, Dog Gone. You always reveal information as though you think no one else knows it.

3. You can whine all you want about ALEC, but voters elect politicians, not interest groups. Voters are responsible for who gets into office. You will find that voters who care about guns are much greater in number than you realize.

"1. So Democommie and Dog Gone have no answer to the question, How would Obama be better than Romney on the single issue of guns? Of course not."

Do you genuinely believe that you're an educated person? WTF? You make an extraordinary claim, to wit, that Romney is more qualified to be PotUS than is the incumbent--and then demand proof, from us, that it is not the case. You really seem not to be able to understand that you're premise, a ridiculous assertion is totally unfounded. You have no record of Romney's conduct as governor of Massachusetts that favorably compares Mittunswillard to Obama in areas of executive competence. Somehow, though, it makes good sense to you to vote for a guy who HAS tried to restrict your gunzrightz instead on one that hasn't. And, once again, you admit to being interested in the sole issue of hazzin' teh gunz; your "argument" (which is a generous assessment of what is actually the parrotting of gunzloonz talking points) was not, and is not, convincing.

"3. You can whine all you want about ALEC, but voters elect politicians, not interest groups. Voters are responsible for who gets into office."

Does this mean that you're admitting that ALEC's not a legitimate part of the government's three branches and, thus, should not be involved in legislating law?

"You will find that voters who care about guns are much greater in number than you realize."

Highly doubtful. What we will observe is that the VERY vocal minority of gunzloonz will have the same disproportionate effect on politics as do the KKKristian ReiKKKwing of the GOPeabaggists. That you willingly align yourselves with despicable P.O.S.'s like Gingrich, Santorum, Romney and their various anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-middle class and poor, anti-science and anti-education agendas is not a surprise. What does surprise me is that you consider sucking at the gummint teat in your day job is somehow congruent with your politics. I should not be surprised, as hypocrisy has become a sacrament to the reiKKKwing, but that's MY niaevete showing.

Democommie, we can name any number of activist groups that make up a vocal minority. Take the supporters of abortion rights and gay marriage as examples. I side with both, in case you don't remember. Being in the minority on a political position often means that one is in the right. I don't align myself with the politicians that you named, by the way. You keep trying to tie me to a particular party, and I keep telling you that it's not true. I'm waiting to see who the third party candidates will be, since neither the Democratic nor the presumptive Republican nominee will satisfy me. Where in any of that is the hypocricy that you claim for me?

Mikeb said<"If the racist white conservatives weren't so desperate to rid the country of Obama,"

Mikeb, that sounds like something ignorant DG or DC would say. Most people who want Obama gone want him gone for political or partisan reasons, not because he's a mulatto.

Obama in a landslide? Do you mean a popular vote landslide or an electoral vote landslide? Either one would be amazing since polls this week indicate either Romney or Paul beating him.Personally, I don't trust polls.orlin sellers

No, the hatred of a white president, if you're talking about Bush was not inexplicable at all. That was mainly about Iraq or even his glorious record as governor of Texas which, like today, held the record for executions. There were many very understandable reasons for people to hate Bush. It's not quite that way with Obama. The reaction to him is disproportionate to differing political view points. It's racism.

That's because you agree with much of Obama's side of politics. I despised Bush, and I see Obama as weak. I disagree with aspects of the positions and actions of both. In neither case does the person's skin color matter in the slightest to me.

"Democommie, we can name any number of activist groups that make up a vocal minority."

Do so and while you're naming them, name the $B+ industries that are underwriting their lobbying efforts so that they can do more business. Here's a hint, there aren't any on the left side of the political spectrum that I'm aware of.

"Take the supporters of abortion rights and gay marriage as examples. I side with both, in case you don't remember."

My memory isn't faulty, I simply don't believe you. You've lied about so many other things in the last six months or so that I wouldn't take anything you say at face value. Give me some PROOF of your support of those and other "lefty" positions before asking me to "remember".

"I don't align myself with the politicians that you named, by the way. You keep trying to tie me to a particular party, and I keep telling you that it's not true. I'm waiting to see who the third party candidates will be, since neither the Democratic nor the presumptive Republican nominee will satisfy me. Where in any of that is the hypocricy that you claim for me?"

IOW, you're going to not vote? A vote for a non-contender is the same as no vote. You won't say who you support, but all of your positions align you with that lying P.O.S. Ron Paul--who has NO fucking chance of winning anything other than his sinecure in Texas. You don't know or care what any of these candidates actually stand for other than what they tell you. You're an ignorant blowhard who attempts to pass themself off as someone who is informned; nothing could be further from the truth.

"Mikeb, that sounds like something ignorant DG or DC would say. Most people who want Obama gone want him gone for political or partisan reasons, not because he's a mulatto."

Sez orlin sellers, a white racist.

" Either one would be amazing since polls this week indicate either

Romney or Paul beating him."

Citation required.

"Personally, I don't trust polls.

Sez orlin sellers after referring to them with an argument from authority.

Democommie, the only vote that is wasted is the one for a candidate that the voter doesn't actually support. You're buying into the nonsense that we have to vote for Democrats or Republicans because they're the two big parties. How can you spout vitriol about special interest groups and corruption and then chastise me for not wanting to vote for corrupt parties? Do you really believe that Democrats are somehow immune to corruption or are somehow purer than Republicans?

As for my support of abortion rights and gay marriage, what can I offer you that would satisfy you? I've written about my agreement with marriage equality here, on my weblog, and in comment sections all over. I teach the idea to my classes whenever it's appropriate. I've done similar things with regard to abortion.

But there you go claiming that I've lied again. I'll repeat my offer: If you can show that I've lied--made a statement that I knew to be false, in other words--I'll leave this blog and never return. It should be simple for you, if I've told as many lies as you claim.

I must have missed that requirement on Mikeb's rules for commenting. If you didn't have your head up the DNC's talking points memo you probably would have seen the poll results because they were plastered all over the newspapers and internet news sites.But, maybe you were busy moving again.orlin sellers

"You're buying into the nonsense that we have to vote for Democrats or Republicans because they're the two big parties. How can you spout vitriol about special interest groups and corruption and then chastise me for not wanting to vote for corrupt parties?"

You don't want either party to win? Why vote?

I see that you're continuing your long tradition of making asinine assertions and then, when challenged to back them up, can't be bothered. HOW IS ROMNEY A BETTER CANDIDATE FOR POTUS THAN OBAMA. Considering your vast knowledge on everything I'm surprised you didn't just dash off a couple of thousand words on Romney's superduper plans for MurKKKa.

It's obvious that the only thing you're really interested in is pissing and moaning about your gunzrightz being violated; you are beyond pathetic.

The only reason that Democrats and Republicans get elected is because people vote for them. But remember that the Republican Party was once a third party, and the Democrats were a challenger party at the beginning. We can vote out both, if we choose to do so. Why must I vote for someone I don't support?

But here's how Romney would be better than Obama on guns. Romney is more likely to nominate justices to the Supreme Court that will support gun rights. Romney is beholden to a party that supports gun rights. The people who will vote for Romney by and large support gun rights.

On other matters, both of them are bad in their own ways. As others have observed, every election is a qualified disaster.

For one, the more support a third party gets the more viable they become- maybe eventually getting to participate in debates. But the bigger reason is that there is a heck of a lot more to vote on in November than just the presidency.

" must have missed that requirement on Mikeb's rules for commenting. If you didn't have your head up the DNC's talking points memo you probably would have seen the poll results because they were plastered all over the newspapers and internet news sites.But, maybe you were busy moving again."

IOW, you don't know wtf you're talking about. Considering that you think Thomas Sowell is an authority of any kind that is not surprising.

I don't think Romney or Obama either one actually understand what is required. Gun laws are lax. Availability is high. Concealed carry is easy to get most everywhere outside of CA and NY. Both parties have stipulated they won't touch gun law. Sort of like Tip O'Neill coined the term, "Third rail of politics..."

The idea is we need to make it easier to kill people. What the hell good does it do to own a gun if you can't even KILL ANYBODY?

Mike,

Slick Willie? That's redneck. Clinton is an intelligent and involved ex-president. He was a force for good during both of his tenures in high office. Bite your tongue!

Thomas Sowell from Wiki:Thomas Sowell (born June 30, 1930) is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author. A National Humanities Medal winner, he advocates laissez-faire economics and writes from a conservative and libertarian perspective. He is currently a Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Sowell was born in North Carolina, but grew up in Harlem, New York. He dropped out of high school, and served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. He received a bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1958 and a master's degree from Columbia University in 1959. In 1968, he earned his doctorate degree in economics from the University of Chicago.

Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell and University of California, Los Angeles, and worked for think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980 he has worked at the Hoover Institution. He is the author of more than 30 books.orlin sellers